For i = 1 step 1 to 5
{
For j = 1 step 1 to j
Output j
End for //loop on j
Output newline
}
End for //loop on i


How does this code produce this output?
1
12
123
1234
12345

I see step 1 to five in outer loop first so we travel to the inner
loop for( j=1 step 1 to j) j =1 so output the first 1
What i dont see is where does j get increased so the next
"12" will print

hope i made my question clear! Take your time no hurry

The language "For j = 1 step 1 to i" implies the following:

In C we would write for(j = 1; j < i; j++)


You can step through it just as if you were the computer:

Here's what happens the first time through the outer loop (i = 1):
i = 1, (j goes from 1 to 1: output j), output newline

Result:
1(newline)

Here's the second time through the outer loop:
i = 2, (j goes from 1 to 2: output j), output newline

Result:
12(newline)

Here's the third:
i = 3, (j goes from 1 to 3: output j) , output newline

Result:
123(newline)

etc.

Regards,

Dave

I can almost see it except for, where is this instruction in my psuedocode?

if j is less than i

you wrote The language "For j = 1 step 1 to i" implies the following: .........

my school has this on their page

For i = 1 step 1 to 5
{
For j = 1 step 1 to j // this line might be mistyped by school
Output j
End for //loop on j
Output newline
}
End for //loop on i

I thought this might have been a miss type at my school. What do you think?

I apologize for not spotting it. Your original question was a good one, and I just missed the little detail that was bothering you. Yes. the statement "For j = 1 step 1 to j" is incorrect. (Or, maybe it would be better to say that with that statement you definitely won't get the stated output.)

It's almost like cheating to make the computer tell us, and I am sure you were supposed to analyze it as it was written. You definitely spotted a bug.

Anyhow:

Output:

Regards,

Footnote: My restatement of the pseudocode also had an error. I'm just so used to thinking of loops in C a certain way that I didn't quite get it right. (That's another way of saying that I was wrong.) Note the way that I actually wrote the loop statements in the "real" code, and make corrections to my previous statements. Real code is actually easier than pseudocode for me, since there is really no universally accepted standard for pseudocode. (That's no excuse, however, for my missing it.)